 I'm pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to set out to Parliament the Scottish Government's proposals for the future management of fisheries in Scotland. Crucially, I want to invite MSPs across all the parties to get involved in the national discussion on those proposals, which I launched last Monday at the convention of the Highlands and Islands held in Orkney. At a time when very little is certain in the wider policy landscape for fisheries and our coastal communities, this Government is determined to provide as much clarity as we can about what the future holds for key sectors affected by the prospect of disruptive change. Put simply, we want to make the most of our waters and to encourage long-term sustainable economic growth for Scotland's rural economy. To achieve that, we will ensure that our management approach is underpinned by our commitment to meeting international obligations. Scotland's relationship with the sea is a long and a productive one. From the largest port to the smallest key side, our fishers and fishing communities take pride in delivering high-quality produce in a sustainable way. We must work together to build on that sustainably for the future. I want a truly nationwide discussion on those proposals so that everyone involved in fishing has their say and that we can agree on the way forward. The uncertainty around Brexit makes for challenging times for our fishing communities, for the families whose livelihoods depend on fishing, either far out at sea, in inshore waters or onshore in processing or other supply chain industries. Of course, I will continue to fight to get the best deal for our fishing interests from Brexit, but whatever form Brexit eventually takes, I also remain committed to continuing to fight to champion Scotland's fishing interests at home and internationally. I am determined that whatever the future holds, Scotland's role as a world-leading fisheries nation and as a responsible and sustainable fisheries manager will continue. We have set out eight key principles that will underpin our future approach and which will inform our priorities. First, to ensure access to Scottish waters and fishing opportunities is not traded away by the UK Government. Let me be absolutely clear. Scotland's rich fishing grounds should not be used as a bargaining chip in Brexit negotiations. We will seek to maximise the economic and social benefit for our coastal communities of this valuable natural resource. We will hold the UK Government to account on its promise to negotiate future access arrangements and fishing opportunities on an annual basis. Second, to expect our industry to continue to fish sustainably in line with scientific advice to secure the long-term future of our stocks. As part of that, we will continue to use total allowance catch TACs to manage most fish stocks in the future and may consider introducing quotas for non-TACs species such as shellfish. Third, we will seek to ensure that quota is distributed and used effectively. The paper outlines our continued support for the FQA system but also sets out our commitment to ending quota speculation. Where we have additional quota in the future to allocate, our priority will be to incentivise new entrants, to increase the number of people involved in fishing and to develop additional inshore activity that supports the economic growth of coastal communities. Fourth, we want to maximise the use of technology and encourage innovation. That will include work to modernise monitoring and data collection for the inshore fleet and proportionate and appropriate use of remote electronic monitoring, both for compliance and for scientific purposes. Fifth, our approach will treat fish and our fishing waters as a national asset that Governments must steward and enhance for everyone's benefit. We will seek to create and sustain jobs and income for the wider fisheries sector and strengthen economic links between fishing vessels and local communities. We want to see fair work first, applied in the fisheries sector and, for more of the catching sector in particular, to sign up to the Scottish living wage. The aim is to enable more young people to see fishing as a career of choice. We also know that the sector depends significantly on skilled labour from the EU and beyond, so we will press the UK Government to introduce a new work permit system and ensure that cases of exploitation in the fishing workforce are investigated and prosecuted. Sixth, our future approach will combine both continuity, where that makes sense, and change, where a more workable approach is necessary. That means that we will take a sensible and proportionate approach to minimising discards so that fishers can live within the rules and fish sustainably. Therefore, we will develop a workable future catching policy that takes account of the different parts of our fleet and avoids imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. Seventh, we will play our part in managing fish stocks sustainably by continuing to contribute to the gathering of data and analysis about fish stocks. Finally, I believe that the future of Scottish fisheries management lies in increased delegation of local fisheries management functions. I want to explore how we can give greater responsibility and power to local groups to improve community outcomes. As part of that, I want to consider expanding the role of regional inshore fisheries groups to help to deliver more effective inshore fisheries management. The discussion paper sets out this Government's proposals to manage Scotland's fisheries in the future within current devolved responsibilities. I expect the UK Government to respect that and to do nothing as it develops its own future management plans to undermine that. Moreover, I expect the UK Government to deliver on its promises that our competence will only increase over time with enhanced responsibilities. I will continue to fight for that to happen and, given the importance of Scotland's fisheries to the UK as a whole, for Scotland to play its rightful role at the forefront of UK fisheries policy and dealings. I hope that this Parliament will support our endeavours in this regard. However, with power comes responsibility. I am clear that, while much might change in the future, how we conduct ourselves in the future, particularly in relation to our friends and colleagues from other seafaring nations, will remain constant. We will continue to behave responsibly, we will continue to manage our natural resources sustainably, we will continue to support and work closely with local communities, and finally, we will seek to secure the future of our fishing industry and assets for future generations. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We turn to questions and call Peter Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this document, as it is, I think, the first time that this SNP Government has had anything positive to say about leaving the EU and leaving the CFP. I absolutely endorse the statement that we will not trade away access to our waters for access to EU markets. There are many important questions raised in the document, and I wish to highlight two, which I would ask the cabinet secretary to comment on. First, there is a statement saying that there is an aim to stop speculation in quota. That may or may not be a useful aim, but I wonder how does he propose to achieve that. Secondly, one of the biggest threats to our fishermen's future is the discard ban and choke species tying the fleet up. What new initiatives and management structures does he plan to put in place to make the discard ban both effective and workable? In conclusion, as well as important questions, there is much to welcome in this document, as I have said, but it can only come into effect if we leave the EU in a managed manner. Unless we leave, none of the initiatives in this paper can take place, and we remain in the hated CFP. Does the cabinet secretary now support the only deal on the table, and will he encourage his SNP MPs to vote for Theresa May's deal tonight? I thought that Mr Chapman started off extremely well, but I welcome the support that he has given for those measures. To take his last question first, we still believe that the proposals on offer from the Prime Minister raised very serious questions for fishing communities. For example, page 38 of the document that Mr Chapman has praised details the value of European maritime fisheries funding, £150 million between 2014-2020, £10 million for ports, £14 million for the processing sector and £20 million for the collection of fish stock data. I have not given you everything, because I have not got time. There have been so many benefits from the EMFF for the fishing communities in Scotland. It is difficult to enumerate them, but there is no clarity on what would replace that if anything at all, other than that it is to be called a shared prosperity fund. Beyond those three words, we really do not have that much clarity. Going to his questions on having active fishing quotas held by active skippers, the incidence of the so-called slipper skipper has reduced pretty substantially. That is that skippers who possess quota but no longer fish themselves and, through POs, lease their quota to others, we believe that measures can be taken, as Mr Chapman has identified in the paper, to tackle that by the use of licensing powers so that licences would require the quota to be actively fished and managed. In addition to that, there are provisions for new entrants to enter in the event of additional quota becoming available, and that has been welcomed so far as I can see across the whole spectrum. I also asked, and finally, to try to answer all the three questions that he asked, regarding the discard ban. We think that the discard ban, as it is applied by the EU and the CFP, is inflexible. It is a one-size-fits-all. We believe that it is important not to throw away dead fish into the sea. It is an incredible waste and the public are rightly concerned about that. However, there are better ways of using more discretion and flexibility and, indeed, the wisdom and the technology of skippers such as Jimmy Buchen, who has explained to me a particular device that he has developed for a selective type of fishing net that catches those fish that he wishes to catch and lets others escape. Using all those measures, if more flexibility, less top-down, I believe that we can develop a better discard policy. However, I welcome the overall approach that Mr Chapman took this afternoon. Rhoda Grant, to be followed by John Finnie. I thank the cabinet secretary for a prior sight of the statement. The cabinet secretary is aware that quota speculation is a barrier to entry into fishing, with quota changing hands at incredible prices, which are way out of the reach of new entrants. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary to explain what action he proposes to end quota speculation and whether he would consider looking at community ownership of existing and new quota. That would make sure that it remains rooted in the communities that fishing supports. It would not only stop speculation but also make quota available to local fishing industry and to new entrants to that industry. In respect of the steps that we are taking to reduce speculation, first of all, it should be clear that, at the current time, the holders of fishing licences to fish and the right to fish have invested substantially in new vessels. The legal expression, Presiding Officer, is a legitimate expectation that that investment is a secure investment that will continue to be recognised. Indeed, I think that we are on record as stating that any change to that system where it wished to be introduced would be changed that could not be done quicker than seven years and advice has been received to that effect. We are dealing with property assets that have been built up by the efforts of individuals in a risky, dangerous venture over time. Having said that, as I set out a minute ago to Mr Chapman, we believe that, by using the powers and respect of licences and future quota, we are able to do several things. One is to facilitate new entrants coming into the industry. Second is to consider the possibility of having quota, which would attach, if you like, to local communities rather than individuals. Third, further to deal with the issue of requiring a quota to be held by and used by those who are actively fishing. I hope that, in all three respects, those are measures that Rhoda Grant and her colleagues would support. I hope that I have answered all the questions, but I will check on that later. John Finnie is to be followed by Mike Rumbles. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the document and welcome the document, particularly in his references to the prospect of a career in fishing and the role that that could play in stewardship of the sea. Cabinet secretary, I would seek your clarification on one point, if I may please. That follows on from the debate that was held in the chamber here on 10 December, when Parliament supported an amendment by my colleague Mark Ruskell with regard to alleged illegal fishing, which the Parliament agreed to calls for a robust vessel tracking and monitoring technology on all Scottish fishing vessels. Will the cabinet secretary stress the phrase proportionate and appropriate use of remote electronic monitoring? Can he confirm that that is not him raining back on all fishing vessels, as was agreed by Parliament fairly recently? Cabinet secretary, there is no raining back on the contrary. Many vessels already have this equipment fitted and in use. Without going too much into the technicalities, there are different types of equipment that do various things, but the general idea is to be able to have a record of where a vessel is fishing at any point, pinpointing the location of the vessel, so that, if there is a dispute about the whereabouts of the vessel, for example, that if impinged on a particular feature in an MPA, the skipper, if he says, well, I wasn't there, is able to prove that by reference to digital equipment. That's a benefit I think for everybody, for compliance and for the interests of the individual fishermen. I met with representatives from the scallop sector in January and resounding support was given for our proposals to deploy enhanced monitoring and tracking technology throughout the entire scallop dredge fleet. That will put Scotland at the forefront of enabling these technologies to do their job. We will be consulting on the details of the scheme shortly and we intend to help pay for the costs associated with it using, I believe, our funds from Europe. Mike Rumbles is to be followed by John Mason. The cabinet secretary has said in his discussion paper on page 11 that Scottish ministers want the power to raise a Scottish seafood levy. However, can the cabinet secretary confirm that this would be instead of the existing UK seafood levy and not an additional levy? The detail of the quantity of the amount of levy in the sector is something that we need to have a discussion about. What matters is a fair contribution from the fishing sector. Why? Because that levy is then used to market the fishing sector. I have detected at any rate a sense that a lot more could be done to market in certain foreign markets, for example Japan, high-quality Scottish seafood. Therefore, what I would like to see is a discussion document. It is not a formal consultation document where we put forward specific Government proposals. It is a wide discussion about how much should that levy be, by whom should it be paid and what purposes should it be achieved. I have tried to answer that in principle, and I am sure that we can come back to discuss it further. John Mason will be followed by Donald Cameron. The Government has often suggested that we want to remain a good global citizen going forward. It mentioned in his statement about relationships with friends and colleagues from other seafaring nations. I wonder if we can expand on any of that. The way that fishing operates in the North Sea, in West of Scotland, in the pelagic and demersal sector is that TACs are becoming quotas, and producer organisations deal with the administration of that. There are also quota swaps in between countries, so that practical business-like arrangements can be made. Those depend on goodwill between fishing leaders in various countries and the Governments of those countries. I do not think that anyone would wish to see his Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch and Norwegian counterparts become bankrupt because all their quota is taken away in the event of Brexit. Everyone recognises that any arrangements have to be practicable. That is why I emphasise in my statement that we should continue to carry ourselves in a certain way in recognising that we must work with other countries while focusing on the paramount need to get the best possible deal for our own fishermen and fishing communities. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Maureen Watt. Like Peter Chapman, I likewise commend the constructive and positive tone of the statement. Chapter 6 of the paper gives justifiable focus to inshore fisheries, which is, of course, the principal sector on the west coast and in the highlands and islands, and the paper rightly identifies the competing priorities within that sector. Can the cabinet secretary explain how he foresees tensions between mobile and static interests being resolved, and can he reassure the chamber that the proposal or the possibility, at least, of suspending or removing licences in cases of conflict will be given very careful consideration indeed, given the potential for such a power to operate disproportionately and potentially in a draconian manner? I think that Mr Cameron raises a very relevant point. I am, of course, aware that there are, from time to time, tensions and conflicts between certain inshore fisheries interests, scallop and creole, for example. There are also issues about gear conflict, gear damage and other matters. I hope that, in most instances, there is local agreement about those things and that conflict or difficulties arise only in a minority of cases, but, secondly, where those cases arise, I have mentioned remote electronic monitoring equipment. That can also be used to provide an evidential basis about who is right, who is where, when. At the moment, if there is conflict about specific episodes, it is very hard for there to be clear, ascertainable evidence that would stand up in a court of law, as Mr Cameron would be well aware, about what happened and who is where, when. Remote electronic monitoring equipment will deal with that. We are, of course, looking at a more localised approach to fisheries management and whether greater use of spatial management can yield greater benefits. Those measures, along with research on the optimal allocation of nephrops fishing grounds, will help us to inform how to make the most out of our inshore waters. I think that there are many things that we can do. Some of them are set out in chapter 6, and I welcome Mr Cameron's positive approach to the matter. We have about seven questions left but five minutes. Maureen Watt will be followed by Claudia Beamish. The discussion paper sets out starkly the importance and value of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to Scottish fishing, but also shows how Scotland has been short changed by the Westminster Government. Through Westminster's net negotiation, Scotland has only received less than 2 per cent of the available EU funding, despite us being the fourth-largest EU sea area to manage. What guarantees has the Scottish Government received that the funding will continue and how will it ensure that the Scottish fishing interests do not lose out in the allocation of future funding in the UK? Maureen Watt is factually correct. The statistic in page 38 is that the assistance from the EMFF to Scotland is less than 2 per cent of the funding that is available across the EU, despite Scotland having 9 per cent of the EU's sea fisheries landings and the fourth-largest sea area to marry. Maureen Watt raises a point that is incontroversibly true. Although the funding of £150 million from 14 to 20 has been valuable, it is only about a quarter of the pro-Ratish share to which we would have been entitled had we negotiated it perhaps on ourselves, on our own account. That illustrates just how high the stakes are, Presiding Officer, about where we are at the moment. My job is to get the best deal for Scotland. I do so by working constructively with my UK counterparts. I would mention that I have a high regard for George Eustace, although he resigned. I this morning had a pleasant introductory discussion with his replacement, Robert Goodwill, and I will deploy the same approach, but it is very hard to get a fair deal out of the London Treasury. I can tell you that. Claudia Beamish, to be followed by Stewart Stevenson. The cabinet secretary and others have already touched on the European Maritime Fisheries Fund and the proposed Shared Prosperity Fund. If the UK fails to match the current levels of funding in the longer term—this has been instrumental in delivering targeted funding for coastal communities—how will the Scottish Government replace the support if it is a negative reaction by the UK Government and enables smaller fleets to innovate and fragile communities to adapt to a sustainable climate-friendly fishing industry and, equally importantly, support the processing sector? We need clarity because, as the discussion paper notes at page 39, no decisions have been made on any successor arrangements to TEMFF, and in respect of the period post 2020, we need more clarity. I emphasise the positive role that fishermen take in respect of fishing in a sustainable fashion. I also think that it is important that we have a son of EMFF in order to deal with the safety issues. It is absolutely imperative that we look very carefully at the MCA's recommendations in respect of marine safety, especially of smaller vessels. That can only really be done if there is some financial assistance to enable us to deal with that task. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Edward Mountain. Is the cabinet secretary aware that, with much benefit deriving to the catching sector from leaving the CFP, the processing sector is where the real benefits are delivered for communities? 70 per cent of people are non-UK nationals employed in the industry in the northeast. How can he help to ensure that people from across Europe and elsewhere continue to be able to come and work in our industry and make the immense contributions that they make to our communities and the economy? Mr Stevenson makes an extremely valid point. We can achieve that by having a new work permit system or, at the very least, restoration of the previous visa extension system. We also wish to enable the legal employment of non-EAEA nationals such as people from the Philippines and the fishing fleet and ensure that they have the same employment rights and legal protections as onshore workers. That would be a significant advantage in the alleged maltreatment of workers. We must see that the fishing fleet can continue to access the labour that it needs. That has really been a very sad and bureaucratic morass of a chapter in our fishing history, and it really must be solved. I note that Mr Eustace, who has left his post just this morning, criticised the UK's immigration policy in the rural economy as a whole. I very much hope that his successor, Mr Goodwill, with whom I discussed this morning, can take that as an early piece of work in his entry. It is absolutely essential. Lastly, this morning, I spoke with people leaders in the food and drink sector about preparing for no-deal Brexit. One of them was Ryan Scatterty, who, as Mr Stevenson knows, runs a major processing plant and is on record as he is saying this. We can have all the fish in the world, but if we do not have the workers to process them, it will be of little avail. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, welcome this discussion document in the Cabinet Secretary's statement this afternoon. I understand that the Scottish Government's proposal is to pass all fisheries legislation together, including legislation concerning the inshore fisheries. My question, Cabinet Secretary, is can you confirm that you wish to lay all the proposed legislation before the Parliament during this session? I do not want to be picky, but I think that I have to be careful about the definition of all, but it is certainly our desire to legislate in this session for a number of different purposes. The paper talks about the need to update the inshore fisheries strategy of 2015, for example. However, there are other uncertainties in relation to Brexit, because the UK Fisheries Bill, with which we have had issues that have not been resolved, is unlikely to become law prior to 29 March and is still subject to the discussion of the UK Government with us. That issue really needs to be resolved before we can start being absolutely definitive about the future. It is safe to say that any legislation that we require to deal with simply to enable the mechanics of fishing to continue, we will certainly legislate here using our devolved powers, should it so be necessary. I apologise to Emma Harper to Lewis MacDonald and Richard Lyle that we were not able to reach their question this afternoon. We have to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate. On motion 16257, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the working to make Scotland a fair work nation by 2025. I encourage all members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.